Is Queer Parenting Possible
Is queer parenting possible?
Shelley M. Park
“Our family is weird, mom . . . and I wouldn’t have it any other way”
My American daughter first made this comment when she was eleven years old. The occasion was Christmas day, the first winter holiday following the summer in which her father and I separated. Present on this day, were the following members of my daughter’s family: her twelve year old (adopted, biracial) sister, her biological mother (myself) and mother’s girlfriend (Canadian and German, atheist and Buddhist), her biological father (still legally my husband) and his girlfriend (both Americans, both atheists), and her biological grandfather who had traveled from Canada to join us in Florida for the holidays. We had all spent the previous evening together celebrating a slightly belated Hannukah/winter solstice/Christmas Eve with my daughters’ Jewish godmother (or “grandmother”) and her children and grandchildren (known to my daughters as their aunts, uncles, and cousins). And my dad, I and the girls would be departing in a few days time to spend part of our holidays with my elder daughter’s extended birthfamily (Guyanese and Jamaican Americans of Indian descent). At the moment, we were all playing a slightly risqué and somewhat silly game of charades and having a good time.
Our family is, in my daughter’s words, “weird” and as her mother I am gratified to know that she not only recognizes our difference from “normal” families, but indeed embraces this difference. It is my hope that in parenting our children queerly, we teach them the value of non- normativity. Queer parenting is not easy, however—and, indeed, on some days I am not even certain it is possible. In this essay, I explore what queer parenting means, whether it is possible, and if so, how it is best enabled. My theoretical reflections on these questions are both personal characterized by open adoption, separation/divorce and re-partnerings, unorthodox living arrangements, and permeable and fluid family boundaries. My reflections are also prompted in part by consideration of the current movement for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and homoparental rights. While not unsympathetic to the desire for an expansion of civil rights for members of the lgbt community (of which I consider myself a part), I am painfully aware of the fact that securing the rights sought will not address the needs of complicated families such as my own. Moreover, I worry that securing the rights sought may further the norm of the nuclear family, thus neutralizing a more promising and more radical queer politics. At the same time, I am uncertain as to whether a more radical queer politics can make room for families, such as my own, which include child-bearing and child-rearing. We are a “weird family,” as my daughter suggests, but are we in fact “queer?” More specifically, can one be a queer parent and what would it mean to claim this?
Queer as an adverb
together with a steadily increasing number of homoparental families created by international adoption attests to the fact that members of the lgbt community are able to parent (as if there were ever any question about this). So queer parenting is possible. This is not the sense of “queer parenting” that I have in mind, however. There are undoubtedly good reasons (in a cultural climate still marked by homophobic stereotypes of lgbt persons as selfish, immature and even pedophilic) to highlight loving, caring, competent parenting by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other ambiguously gendered and/or ambiguously sexed persons. However, to refer to this with a (any?) non-heterosexual identity. Although identity politics might be a useful strategy in certain contexts, I am interested here in using the term “queer” not as an identity marker, but instead as an adverb qualifying the activity of parenting itself. A queer parent, in this sense, is someone (regardless of sexual or other identity) who parents queerly. The question then becomes whether parenting is the sort of activity that can be practiced outside the bounds of the normal. This is a question that can and should be asked not only by heterosexual parents, but by same-sex parents as well. To what extent does parenting perpetuate normalization?
Breeders and reprosexuals
The irony of trying to enlist queer theory in the task of thinking about parenting is that “queer” is frequently defined in opposition to institutions of family and reproduction. Consider for example the disparagement of heterosexuals as “breeders;” if one views reproduction as the antithesis of “queer,” then the term “queer parenting” becomes an oxymoron. We could address this by ignoring or downplaying or rejecting this critique, pointing out that not all heterosexuals do this, however. In fact, I think it is a fair characterization of the “straight” personality. Many —indeed most—people (like my younger self) grow up simply assuming, or succumb during early adulthood to the widespread cultural assumption, that maturity includes “settling down and raising a family.” And this “playing it straight” (whether played out by those of heterosexual or other sexual identities) does embody an inability to imagine or enact other forms of living--an inability deserving of critique.
Closely related to the “breeder” identity are the presumptions and practices of repro-
“Reprosexuality,” as defined by Warner, is an “interweaving of heterosexuality, biological reproduction, cultural reproduction, and personal identity” (9). The straight personal identity interwoven with biological and cultural reproduction (a “breeder identity”) is linked by Warner to a self-understanding (along with fantasies of self-transcendence) that is tied to one’s status as procreative. The difficulties with reprosexuality as a norm are three-fold: it characterizes “normal” sexuality in terms of its openness to reproductive utility, rather than in terms of erotic pleasure (see e.g. Winnubst 2006); it privileges ‘given’ biological families over families of choice (Modell 1994; Weston 1991); and, related to this, it presumes and values homogeneity in family composition, drawing rigid boundaries around those who ‘belong’ to a family and excluding others who may be different (biologically) or hold different values (culturally).
Is reprosexuality a necessary part of parenting? I think not. It is true that some heterosexuals mate in order to reproduce and many homophobes continue to believe that sex without reproductive possibilities is ‘unnatural’ or ‘deviant.’ Yet, lesbian and gay parents and heterosexuals who create families through adoption or by use of artificial technologies embody a all heterosexuals who take pleasure in non-procreative sex. There are queer (non-‘natural’) ways of becoming a parent and those who are parents are capable of having queer (non- reproductive) sex. Furthermore, one’s status as a parent does not entail that one privileges bio- families over families of choice or that one assumes or promotes family homogeneity.
When my daughter claims our family is “weird,” she is referring, in part, to our queer family composition. We are a transracial, multiethnic, intergenerational family extended across cities, states, and countries. We embody differences in sexual identities and politics, and the living. Our kinship, moreover, is largely constructed and voluntary, not biologically given nor legally protected. And this is currently true of the parent-children relationships, as well as extended kinship networks of aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Neither my eldest daughter’s birthmother, nor my daughters’ othermothers (e.g. parental partners) have any legal parental status, although they choose to be in our daughters’ lives and my daughters choose to be in theirs. My daughters’ father and I have a biological connection to only one of our daughters and a legal status with regard to each that is, at present, precarious. We are separated, but not divorced, and our custody arrangements of the past three years are not legally sanctified, but instead self- invented and dependent upon our mutual good will.
The heterogeneity of our family, the permeability, flexibility and ambiguity of its boundaries, and its grounding of kinship in voluntary choices all deviate from cultural norms governing “traditional” (biological, nuclear) families. However, we are far from unique. In our composition, we embody attributes of other transracial, transnational and multicultural families as created through adoption, inter-racial couplings, separation and remarriage, geographical families, we cannot “[describe] families that depart substantially from traditional family forms as distinctively gay;” because many heterosexual families have also “queered . . . family composition norms” (p.146). If “[q]ueer confuses the very basis of kinship systems, leading us to resignify the meaning of family away from its biological moorings” (Winnubst 2006), then childrearing which takes place within such “confused” kinship systems is, in this sense, a queer parental practice.
As Judith Halberstam (2005) notes, “much of the contemporary theory seeking to disconnect queerness from an essential definition of homosexual embodiment has focused on queer space and queer practices.” “Queer,” she suggests, “refers to nonnormative logics and organizations of community, sexual identity, embodiment, and activity in space and time” (6). I have thus far suggested that parents need not have a reprosexual identity, and that families can be (and postmodern families frequently are) organized in non-normative ways. Here and below, I want to suggest that such non-normative organization extends beyond queer family composition to postmodern reconfigurations of domestic space and parental time.
In addition to considering the heterogeneity of our family, when my daughter calls us “weird” she also refers to the strange ways in which we inhabit the physical space(s) known as “home.” Home, for us, is currently fragmented across several counties. There is the “suburban home,” in which only my daughters consistently reside; their father and I rotate in and out on a somewhat predictable, but also flexible, schedule—sometimes with and sometimes without our partners and/or other family who may share the residence with us for a few hours, or days, or home--where my husband and I each live separately during some of our non-custodial weeks and where various permutations of our family may convene for a day or a weekend. And there is the “downtown home” (my girlfriend’s), where I frequently reside and where one of my daughters will sometimes stay if she wants to enjoy a weekend of theatre with us or just go on retreat from sister. My husband, thus, regularly commutes between 2 homes, I frequently commute between 3 (as does my girlfriend) and our daughters have the opportunity for flexible domestic space, stretched across urban, suburban and rural locales. As teenagers, this flexibility for my daughters youngest daughter spends enough time with the families of two of her girlfriends that she refers to these spaces as her “other homes” and the adult women who inhabit these spaces as her “other mothers.” None of us view home as a fixed and sedentary locale; home is a shifting, transitory and de-centered place for each of us.
Such decenterings provide important challenges to normative material, psychological and epistemological assumptions, opening up sites of resistance. In her well-known article, “Coalition Politics,” Bernice Reagon Johnson (1983) contrasts the space of a coalition politics to that of a home, noting that the former is not a safe or nurturing space where unsettling differences can be locked out, as they can in a home. Similarly, postcolonial theorist Teresa de Lauretis advocates “leaving or giving up a place that is safe, that is ‘home’—physically, emotionally, linguistically, epistemologically—for another place that is unknown and risky,” depicting family, self, and home as “held together by the exclusions and repression that enable any ideology of the same” (22). These conceptions of ‘home’ (whether the subject of longing or the subject of critique) as a safe and uncontested space and of the self as a unitary and fixed coalitional in structure, requiring adjustments, flexibility, and negotiations among different persons and places.
Shared parental custody post-divorce typically involves de-centering ‘home’ (for children, parents, or both). And re-partnerings of separated or divorced parents extends the network of adults sharing childrearing responsibilities, as do other practices such as open adoption, othermothering in African-American communities, and communal childrearing as practiced by extended families, cooperative neighbors, friendship networks and other intentional and responsibility for childrearing among many persons. This distributed responsibility has two important consequences. First, it enables a form of parenting that is not about the reproduction of sameness. The adults involved may—and often do--embody different values and practices, enforce different norms and encourage different types of non-normativity. Secondly, it enables parents to distribute time differently than would be possible were any one (or cohabiting two) of them solely responsible for childrearing.
Queering bourgeouis time
Queer theorists and activists have critiqued several ways in which straight families inhabit and use time. The subjects of critique include the following inter-related embodiments of time: reproductive time, family time, generational time, and reproductive futurism. Below I address these in turn. As my remarks suggest, I think each of these may be possible for parents to resist (thus rendering queer parenting possible), but the former embodiments of time are easier to resist than the latter (which make queer parenting difficult).
Reproductive time is “ruled by a biological clock for women and by strict bourgeois rules of respectability and scheduling for married couples” (Halberstam 2005, 5). In being taught to “grow up, get married and have children,” we are encouraged not only to participate in the institutions of marriage and parenting, but to participate in these activities in a particular order and according to a particular timeline. (As the schoolyard chant goes, “ . . . first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage.”) Nonetheless, there are parents who do not follow the proposed reproductive schedule. Resisting rule by their biological clock are may have children by means of adoption or artificial reproductive technologies. Moreover, teen mothers, lesbian mothers and single mothers who have children outside of marriage each embody resistance to bourgeois rules of respectability.
Family time
Family time is defined by Halberstam (2005) as “the normative scheduling of daily life (early to bed, early to rise) that accompanies the practice of childrearing.” This scheduling is determined by “an imagined set of children’s needs” and “beliefs about children’s health and healthful environments for childrearing” (5). We have all met—or perhaps, even been—those parents of infants who cut visits short because it is the baby’s scheduled nap (or feeding or bath) time. Friends, acquaintances and colleagues who were once flexible and spontaneous frequently transform into rigid sticklers for a precise schedule upon becoming parents. And the situation may not improve much as children become older; scheduled naps give way to scheduled play dates as infants become toddlers; these in turn give way to scheduled music and dance lessons, softball practices and swim meets as toddlers become school age children. However, while such (Warner 2005), this is not a necessary part of parenting. In earlier generations and still in many rural communities, children might simply accompany their parents to a dance or other adult social gathering on the assumption that if and when they were tired, they would simply curl up and fall asleep somewhere. In poorer urban as well as rural communities, spontaneous games of pick-up baseball or basketball or tag or hide and seek still prevail over scheduled games and lessons, enabling children to develop skills and community of their own independently of much adult assistance. It is not necessary to—and indeed may be antithetical to--children’s well-being
At the same time, anyone who says that “having a child will not change my life,” is likely in for an awakening. In choosing to parent, one does take on time-consuming responsibilities for a dependent other—one’s days and weeks frequently include domestic, academic, social, and medical related tasks centered around children’s needs. Whether rigidly or flexibly scheduled, these tasks consume time that might have once been spent in other ways (doctor and dentist appointments and parent-teacher interviews, as well as children’s ill-health require time away from work; leisure time once spent at the gym or the bar or simply reading a good book may need at times to give way to shopping for school supplies, arranging children’s birthday parties or simply playing a game with one’s children). It is important to note that shifts in how one spends one’s daily time are not always changes for the worse, however. Celebrating the birth or accomplishment of my children is a joyful activity, as are celebrations of the birthdays or accomplishments of adult friends and family. Making up silly songs or playing pointless children’s games with my girls when they were young was at least as much fun as playing adult games, as it was the playfulness itself and not winning or losing that mattered. In helping my new things myself (including presently, Spanish and sign language). These parts of my past and present domestic routines have replenished me and helped me to grow. They remove me from, rather than slavishly chain me to, a ticking clock. By having children in my life, I have learned of necessity how to put work aside and make room for pleasure. Parenting has, in this sense, enhanced my ability to inhabit time queerly.
At the same time, parenting is undoubtedly also work. And not all of it is joyful or satisfying. Here it is important that the work be distributed among as many adults as possible. appointments can become overwhelming if one attempts to do it all within a nuclear (two parent or single parent) family, leaving one with little time for play with or without one’s children.
Inhabiting time queerly as a parent, thus relates to inhabiting domestic space queerly and queering the family composition to include as many other caretakers as possible.
Generational time
Generational time—or what Halberstam refers to as the “time of inheritance” is “the time within which values, wealth, goods, and morals are passed through family ties from one generation to the next” (5). This is closely connected to what Michael Warner (1991) refers to as “repro-narrativity” or the notion that “our lives are somehow made more meaningful by being embedded in a narrative of generational succession” (7). Generational time connects the politics of the family to the politics of nationalism, as it “connects the family to the historical past of the nation, and glances ahead to connect the family to the future of both familial and national stability” (Halberstam 2005, 5). In this category, Halberstam also includes the time of “what if”—that “demands protection in the way of insurance policies, health care, and wills” (5). or not queer parenting is possible—is again a function, in part, of family composition. Preceding my biological daughter’s verbal declaration of our family’s “weirdness,” my adopted daughter encountered considerable confusion and anxiety over a grade two homework project involving pasting pictures of her family onto a family tree. Her tree had no single originating trunk as did the template provided by her teacher. When kinship networks are created, in part, by choice, they do not embody standard generational time well. And when families are multicultural and interracial, embodying the values of disparate branches on a family tree with no singular must choose to graft together their own traditions and practices. Similarly, in kinship networks that are transnational, it is unlikely that they will be connected to the politics of nationalism.
While born and raised in the U.S., my daughters have a complicated and queer relationship to their national identity. Neither I nor their father nor my current partner were born in or raised in the U.S. Thus, my daughters are accustomed to critiques of the U.S. government, its policies, and its historical narratives emanating from other national perspectives. Moreover, while my adopted daughter’s birthmother was born and raised in the U.S., her lineage traces one- generation back to Guyana, thus opening a connection not to an uncritical nationalism, but instead to the politics of postcolonialism.
Whether or not parents can completely resist generational time is, however, questionable if we consider the sorts of hypothetical temporality (the “time of what if”) as alluded to by Halberstam. There are no parents I know and few I can imagine who would actively resist protecting their children by virtue of insurance policies, health care, wills or other methods at their disposal. There are, of course, those who are unable to provide these things for their parents may be implicated in what Lee Edelman (2004) refers to as “reproductive futurism.”
Reproductive futurism and political struggles
Edelman (2004) refers to lesbians and gay men working “for the right to marry” and “to adopt and raise children of their own” as “comrades in reproductive futurism” with the political right (19). Members of this movement, he claims, cannot be considered queer because “queerness names the side of those not ‘fighting for the children;’ the side outside the consensus has several dimensions. Among these are “the fetishism of the Child,” the protection of the Child, and an inability to live in the present.
I am not anti-child, but do have sympathy with Edelman’s anti-Child perspective and thus also with his (and other’s) criticisms of the current movement for homoparental rights (and same-sex marriage). To place the right to adopt and raise children (rather than, for example, the celebration of diverse pleasures) at the center of the movement against heterosexism, is to “sacrifice the queer” by appealing to a symbol (the sacred Child) that “represents the social order” (28). Moreover, the appeal is frequently made in a way that damages the solidarity of the lgbt community. Seeking to appease conservative fears about threats to the Child posed by homoeroticism and other queer pleasures, the movement for homoparental rights distinguishes those (stable, loving, hardworking, nurturing, future-oriented, monogamous couples) seeking adoption rights from those (queer, pleasure-seeking, promiscuous, risk-taking, immature, unfit) others who cannot be trusted with children (Lehr 1999, Winnubst 2006). In this context, Edelman is correct in noting that “our enjoyment of liberty is eclipsed by the lengthening shadow potential encounters, with an ‘otherness’ of which its parents, its church, or the State does not approve . . .” is considered paramount (21).
I have tried to suggest here that parenting queerly is possible, but may require providing children with encounters with otherness—including other parents, other values and other ways of living in and thinking about domestic space and familial time than those privileged by traditional, bourgeois families. Providing real children with such “encounters with otherness” will require abandoning images of the Child as pure, innocent, and vulnerable to contamination with regard to whom only one dyadic couple (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) has rights and responsibilities. If we can do this, then perhaps parents would also be able to live more fully in the present as well. Concerns about our children’s future—and hence parental obsessions with wills, insurance and health care, for example—would be greatly alleviated if providing for children were not the sole responsibility of their legally recognized parents. Universal health care coverage (sadly lacking in the U.S.), for example, might alleviate considerable parental concern with the future well-being of their children, allowing them—as well as those who care for adult dependents—to live more fully in the present. A society in which ill, disabled and indigent persons were cared for, rather than disdained and thrown aside, is a society in which wills and insurance are much less necessary.
Shannon Winnubst (2006) suggests that queer freedom is closely related to “having no fixed idea of who or what you are or might become and finding this pleasurable” (199). A truly queer parent might celebrate this freedom for her child as well as for herself--having no fixed idea of who or what her child was or might become and finding this pleasurable. But such where all persons—regardless of who or what they are or will become—are valued and provided for. If then, we are to enable queer parenting as a fully realized possibility, these are the political struggles to be engaged. Unfortunately, these struggles are not adequately engaged by fighting for the legal rights of same-sex couples to marry and rear children according to already established bourgeois norms. Nor are they adequately engaged by a queer politics that excludes the very possibility of non-normative, nurturing relationships between adults and children.
Works cited
Calhoun, Cheshire. 1997. Family’s outlaws: Rethinking the connections between feminism, lesbianism, and the family. In Feminism and families. Ed. Hilde Lindemann Nelson.
New York: Routledge. 131-150. De Lauretis, Teresa. 1990. “Eccentric subjects: Feminist theory and historical consciousness.” Feminist Studies 16:1.
Edelman, Lee. 2004. No Future: Queer theory and the death drive. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Halberstam, Judith. 2005. In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives.
New York: NYU Press. Lehr, Valerie. 1999. Queer family values: Debunking the myth of the nuclear family.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Modell, Judith S. 1994. Kinship with strangers: Adoption and interpretations of kinship in American culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
_____, ed. 1993. Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Warner, Judith. 2005. Perfect madness: Motherhood in the age of anxiety. New York: Penguin. Reagon, Bernice Johnson. 1983. “Coalition Politics: Turning the Century.” In Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology. New York: Kitchen Table Press. 356-368.
Weston, Kath. 1991. Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.